Resisting the Green Dragon: Fideistic worldview of radical religious fundamentalism attacks nature, environment

Posted on by
Reply

NOTE: This content consists of research notes, resources and links, etc. for an upcoming article which will be written over the next few weeks as time allows necessary research… thanks

While such dogmatic detritus as Resisting the Green Dragon is sure to inflame the passions of many — striking at the hearts of the intelligent, the freethinking, the critical/rational thinkers, the integral and spiritually principled, open-minded adherents of virtually all respectful, tolerant, reasonable systems of belief etc., Resisting the Green Dragon almost certainly can be explained in one of the following two ways:

  1. A sad and unfortunate situation: An unintentional misinformation campaign guilty of misguiding so many children, simple-minded, perhaps uneducated, trusting folks;
  2. A carefully designed system of corruption and evil: An intentional, systematic campaign of disinformation: A scam constructed to fill the coffers of extremist, dominionist, self-proclaimed "chosen ones" who dream of making war on secular America, tearing down the separation of church and state, and finally transforming the United States into a Bible-based society… chanting about the paranormal around a bonfire of burning science books and Buddhist pamphlets…

Yes, I’ll admit I had a little bit of writing fun with that, but in all seriousness… The primary question we must ask at this early stage is, Which is it? Is their campaign unintentionally naive — or is it much darker than that? While we certainly hope and pray it is the former, I fear the worst.

I hope other journalists, researchers, investigators, etc. — far wiser than this writer/blogger — have already successfully fully discredited Resisting the Green Dragon… making this job a relatively easy one. But having been raised in a closed system of religious fundamentalism, having actually been more like them than not for so many years, having immersed myself so deeply in fundamentalist apologetics for decades, I basically know what to expect… And that means there will be no clear winner but for the ever-present Principle of Perspective; the proverbial Eye of the Beholder. Even so, it is — I believe — an entirely worthwhile effort.

Resisting the Green Dragon spreads its message with these twelve titles:

1. The False World View of the Green Movement (Dr. E. Calvin Beisner)
2. Rescuing People from the Cult of the Green Dragon (Dr. Peter Jones)
3. Logos vs. Mysticism: Environmentalism’s Flight from Reason (Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi)
4. From Captain Planet to Avatar: The Seduction of Our Youth (Dr. Michael Farris)
5. A Brief History of Environmental Exaggerations, Myths and Downright Lies (Dr. Steven Hayward)
6. Putting Out the Dragon’s Fire on Global Warming (Dr. David Legates)
7. How “Going Green” Impoverishes You, Your Church, and Your Society (Hon. Becky Norton Dunlop)
8. Ravaging the World’s Poor (Dr. James Tonkowich)
9. The Green Face of the Pro-Death Agenda: Population Control, Abortion and Euthanasia (Dr. Charmaine Yoest)
10. Threats to Liberty and the Move Toward a Global Government (Dr. E. Calvin Beisner)
11. A Biblical Guide to Genuine Creation Stewardship (Dr. James Tonkowich)
12. Go Therefore and Make Disciples: Advancing the Gospel in a World Permeated by Environmentalism (Dr. Peter Jones)

Resources: Resisting the Green Dragon: Fideistic, fundamentalist, religious worldview attacks nature, environment

Removed content
Are they talking about Christianity itself? Whatever the Religious Right accuses others of doing, you can be rest assured that that is exactly the intent and purpose of the Religious Right itself, not its opponents.

In its unsuccessful search for a clue, Resisting Green has embraced James 4:7 as the Biblical directive for their message of hate: A verse that has absolutely nothing to do specifically with the environment or nature… More of the typical shell game of religious text interpretation, it appears.

7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.

It’s a real head-scratcher, to be sure.

“A lust for power… A lust for controlling others…” An accurate summary of religious fundamentalism to be sure, but what does it all mean?

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Subtle humor belies religious text: Response to talking animals

Posted on by
Reply

I suppose many of the most conservative religious fundamentalists might consider the notion of humor in the Bible as blasphemy, even though they have probably endured at least a handful of sermons or Sunday school lessons that mentioned God’s sense of humor. The idea of God possessing comedic qualities ought to be embraced and appreciated by even the most rigid Hard Righters, per the belief that man was literally created in the image of God… Right? In any case, this post should be viewed in the proper context of wonder, amazement, and critical thought as opposed to any sort of mocking or belittling. The bottom line is, it represents real humor on some level!

talking animals in the Bible: Balamm's donkey or assOne of the most subtly humorous themes in the Bible that I have noticed so far is the reaction of those lucky few — probably only two individuals (Eve and Balaam) – who actually got to hear animals directly address them by speaking out loud in the local human language (per the Biblical accounts)!!

Please imagine the following scenario for a moment…

Ned, a Nashville man, is hiking on the 4.5-mile Mossy Ridge Trail at Percy Warner on a gorgeous spring day. As he walks – with not another person in sight in front of him or behind him — Five-lined skink at Radnor Lake: Nashville, TNhis thoughts are suddenly interrupted when he hears a clear voice, in very close proximity to him, distinctly ask, “How do you do?” Ned stops and looks around, seeing nothing at first. Then a slight movement catches his eye, now focused on the bark of a large oak tree about four feet to his right. He sees a common five-lined skink with its typical bright blue tail, sunning itself to warm up.

How do you suppose Ned – an everyday Nashville outdoor enthusiast — would react if, during this otherwise uneventful hike, a lizard sunning itself on a nearby tree greeted him with a clear, understandable How do you do as he strolled by? The obvious answer is complete and total shock, almost certainly to the point of disbelief, quite likely inducing Ned to momentarily question his sanity.

Now let’s see what might have happened in this situation if it occurred in Bible times. If Ned’s response were anything like that of Eve or Balaam per the Bible stories, then Ned might have responded, "Not too shabby. How are you?" Ned’s retort would be completely devoid of any surprise or excitement, as though speaking reptiles were nothing special. Ned might stroll on, with a "See you later," or, if not on a tight schedule, he might remain to engage in small talk with the skink for a bit.

Need it even be said how incredibly unrealistic any nonchalant response to a spoken comment from an animal would be if it were to occur in reality, and not in a teaching story? Not really.

In Genesis, Eve’s reaction to the serpent – identified in modern religious dogma as being Satan in disguise, despite the lack of any such identification in the Bible – was normal. However, we must grant Eve a pass; after all, Eve had only recently been created out of dust, a rib, and a bit of God’s breath. Therefore Eve likely possessed a vapid dearth of empirical, life experience against which to measure such a conversation.

Balaam, however, shall receive no such pardon; Balaam was not a brand new human devoid of life experience.

Resources: Humor in the Bible – response to talking animals

Eve, the first woman on earth (Genesis, Old Testament)

Balaam, the diviner (Numbers, Old Testament)

Thursday, May 10, 2012

The questionable quality of Christian apologetics & the typical churchy answers

Posted on by
Reply

hiking at Fiery Gizzard near Monteagle, TN - fall 2008NOTE: This post isn’t quite finished, but we decided to put it out here anyway — due partly to higher-than-usual blog readership (typically 35 to 45 pageviews per day — about 1,000 per month, increasing steadily)… As always, thank you for reading; we really do appreciate it. We welcome all comments, so please feel free to express yourself regardless of your beliefs.

This blogger & lifelong seeker decided to embark on a intense, deep, honest, detailed quest for religious/ spiritual truth in his early 30s; several factors coaxed me into such a study. In part, my rationale was (what I considered to be) the low believability, the inherent desperation, and overall brittleness of the "churchy" answers typically given in response to the notoriously difficult questions that face fundamentalist religious beliefs as a whole. It seems virtually every standard answer from organized religion is canned, rehearsed — not to mention riddled with logical fallacies.

ALL religious criticism in this Search for Truth blog refers to religious fundamentalism only. We honor and respect all progressive, tolerant, respectful, open-minded, compassionate religious views. [ Quick test: Are you a religious fundamentalist? ]

In other words, Christian apologetics — the practice of defending the relatively literal interpretation(s) of the Bible famous painting of Satan, the devilpreferred by fundamentalists, more or less — may represent the last gasp of a stubborn but desperate beast, another face of "Satan."

(Why compare religious fundamentalism to evil? Easy… because under the veil, religious fundamentalism represents a troubling obstacle to peace and civility on our planet; countless horrific acts of mankind have been and continue to be carried out by [ insert any religious fundamentalist belief system here ] in the name of God; there seems to be consistent oversight of basic universal spiritual principles within fundamentalism, as the practical advice is overshadowed by the supernatural aspects that result from faulty literal interpretations; the scarcity of real tolerance, compassion, and acceptance of others due to the complete closed-mindedness of fundamentalism; the extremely low chances of fundamentalist beliefs actually being true; due to fundamentalist tunnel vision, harsh lessons taught by history are quickly forgotten; in the United States and elsewhere, rigid religious belief often corresponds with support for wars… There are more than enough religious art: Creation paintingsolid reasons to beware of religious fundamentalism, to open one’s mind, to find a more tolerant and compassionate group with which to worship… If yours happens to be the exception, please tell us all about it.)

Upon reading this opinion regarding the two creation stories in Genesis, I knew this material would serve as an excellent example of the dubious nature of fundamentalist answers, oozing with that low-believability factor that will always plague religious fundamentalism:

One final but forceful point should be made. In Matthew 19:4-5, the Lord Jesus combined quotations from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. He declared: "He who made them from the beginning made them male and female [Genesis 1:26], and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh [Genesis 2:24]." religious art: Creation paintingIf the liberal viewpoint is true, how very strange that Christ should have given not the slightest hint that the two accounts involved a multiple authorship and contradictory material![1] Obviously, the Son of God did not endorse the modern Documentary Hypothesis.

When the texts of Genesis 1 and [Genesis] 2 have been considered carefully, one thing is clear[2]: an objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies[3], nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics[4]. It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,” but for the common person[5]. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine[6]. (Source: Apologetics Press)

The two paragraphs above are part of a serious effort to disprove the notion that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contain two separate creation stories, possibly written by two different authors. While the above attempt at an answer might receive a B for effort – for it is, after all, at least a valiant attempt to convince doubting fundamentalists to remain in the fold. However, it completely breaks down when confronted by even halfhearted human rationality & objective critical thought.

Notes

sheep [1] There are so many problems with this that I presently won’t burn up my time on the details. Suffice to sadly admit that most people do not bother to think for themselves in challenging ways regarding their beliefs; the masses are like herds of sheep. Seeking real religious and spiritual truth does not mesh with simple-minded adoption of a nation’s preferred religion, nor with adopting the religion of one’s peers, or family….

[2] Clear to whom, exactly? Primarily to those who already believe it…

[3] An objective evaluation tends to reveal discrepancies; however, an evaluation lacking in objectivity does not; they got this one backwards (probably intentionally).

[4] Apologetic defenses are often rife with personal pleas practically begging readers to remain within the fold & discouraging religious doubt — and even downplaying critical thought. Join the masses, they plead.

Here, the opinions of skeptics and other intelligent folks (that is, those who do not fall for the standard religious dogma or the paranormal literal interpretations of religious texts) are called fanciful, ever-changing, "liberal critics" –- probably a careful choice of words designed to induce negative feelings toward those with liberal, progressive, "threatening" politics. The possible implication that non-fundamentalists are also liberals is wildly inaccurate, obviously.

Another fundamentalist mantra: "If you doubt what we say, then you must be a liberal."

[5] The Bible was intended for common folk, not for scholars…
In a sense, I agree with this statement. Cogent, written, spiritual teachings should be aimed toward everyday people; the writing style should not be overly complicated or technical. However, it will not take long for the new Bible student to see much evidence to the contrary, due largely to strong cultural contexts which will be missed by non-anthropologists! And that’s not to mention the required mastery of Greek and Hebrew for those concerned about possible translation issues… and so on…

[6] The average reader will know the source is divine…
Who are these "average readers"? In Sunday school, perhaps… mostly those who already believe — those raised to believe. This blogger agrees that average and/or uneducated folks are much more likely to fall prey to the sophisticated, educated, smooth-talking religious hucksters — often paid amazingly well to spread their divisive, legalistic, fundamentalist message. However, it is hard to blame followers who were spoon-fed their religious fundamentalism from their earliest days on. In truth, the systems themselves inherently contain clever devices that minimize any real, dedicated efforts by adherents to study the material in an objective, meaningful way.

Religious fundamentalism is a human tragedy that few even realize exists — especially from the inside…

lightning from nearby storm at night in Nashville - Stephen Frasier PhotosAll we can do is promote rational thought, encourage adherence to basic universal spiritual principles in all facets of life — and, hopefully, help to persuade a few readers to examine all forms of fundamentalism with a much keener eye & investigate rigid religious beliefs more closely, intently, and rationally, with open minds.

It’s amazing that such a large proportion of U.S. Christian Protestant fundamentalists has never even read the Bible in its entirety. Alarmingly few believers are able to explain where the Bible came from in the first place. This is not surprising to those who have experienced those closed religious lives first-hand.

In any case, the typical apologist diatribes take for granted the belief or assumption that the Bible represents a solid, coherent, divine message or vision, rather than what it really is: a handpicked, after-the-"fact", disparate collection of writings from across oceans of time written by numerous authors — with all the current books of the Bible having been voted in by priests around 325 C.E. in the Council of Nicaea[11].

classic religious painting: Adam and Eve in Garden of Eden, serpent - talking snakeThe following paragraph came from the same source, Apologetics Press:

If you were to open your Bible and begin reading, you would quickly come to understand how the Universe got here, including the Earth, and how we human beings came into existence. You would read about the first two human beings, Adam and Eve, and how they disobeyed God’s directive to them, thereby introducing sin into the world. This circumstance becomes the central concern[10] of the rest of the Bible: human sin and God’s intention to atone for that sin so that humans can be reconciled to Him through the forgiveness of their sins. (Source: What the Bible Says about the Church of Christ — Apologetics Press)

This is so typical of the thinking that goes on within the closed systems of fideism and religious fundamentalism. One can see the subtext right through the detritus; it says something like, "We are right, everyone else is wrong, and here’s our proof!"

What the Bible Says about the Church of Christ is a 96-page document — part of a series designed to poke holes in competing denominations within Christian fundamentalism. That is, the series represents an effort by this group to discourage believers in other churches, many of which differ on mere minutiae — what many would consider to be trivial practices.

Using instruments in church is a great example of a seemingly trivial issue or squabble between fundamentalist Christian sects. Churches of Christ will not mix with the Southern Baptists because the latter uses instrumental music as part of its worship; the Church of Christ is a capella only, teaching that music apart from the human voice is not approved for use in church. (This blogger was raised in the Church of Christ in Nashville and attended a private Christian school from first grade all the way through college!)

If you attend church but are secretly harboring doubts about how closely your church’s teachings actually conform to reality & truth, then you are exactly where I was at age 30. If spiritual truth is important to you, please do yourself a HUGE favor and launch some serious research. Go at it more intensely, objectively, closely, and seriously than ever before — that is, if having beliefs that align with reality and truth is important to you…

Taoist yin-yang symbolizing absence of dualism You will find that TRUE OBJECTIVITY concerning religious belief is quite difficult to achieve, at first; but that changes with ongoing study. Continue to research religious/spiritual traditions from all angles — Taoist, Buddhist, agnostic, etc. — even atheist viewpoints, no matter how offensive. The point is maintaining an open mind. It helps to assume from the start that every religion has an equal if remote chance of being true — and it’s your job to find the truth.

Taoism: statue of Lao TzuDiscover for yourself what the smartest, most influential people throughout history came to believe for themselves. Believing in a thing simply because some other person or group believes in it, is certainly not a sufficient reason in itself to adopt the belief; however, looking into these matters is a priceless exercise in learning, knowledge, perspective, and finally wisdom. For those who engage in long-term spiritual quests, inner peace grows and grows… finally resulting in complete freedom… really.

Notes

[10] All of mankind is tainted with original sin (from fruit-eating)
Here we see the sadly popular fundamentalist belief that man is born defective and bad, and that one must embrace a paranormal belief system and go through a supernatural process in order to fix oneself and make it to heaven. It appears the practical elements have been forsaken for the paranormal aspects of religion, causing the beautiful spiritual message to be overlooked entirely!

It never ceases to amaze that so many people in the United States and elsewhere purport to believe this massive religious mess and eternal suffering is the result of such an innocent mistake as eating the wrong fruit — an action based solely upon on the simple recommendation of a talking snake. Geez!

[11] Origin of the Bible

…many of the original books of the bible were deliberately left out. The apocryphal books were eliminated over several of the following ecumenical councils. In 553AD, in the second ecumenical council of Constantinople, the remaining ideas of reincarnation and the transferring of souls from one body to another were deleted from the Bible.

Did you ever wonder what happened to Jesus between the age of 12 and 32? Most of his life was left out of the final version of the New Testament. I have read in some places that he left Jerusalem, and went to India during that time and learned Buddhism from the Indian masters. [Ed.: This is even more believable after one researches the large number of amazing, even suspicious similarities between Buddha's teachings and the teachings of Jesus 500 years later.] Well, that obviously just didn’t fit the agenda of the church or Constantine’s agenda at the time, so all books and passages referring to those many years of the life of Jesus Christ were removed from the scripture that ended up in the Bible we see today.

So, is the Bible we see today the "unerring exact word of God" as told to the 40 people credited with writing the various books remaining in the Bible? Or is The Qur’an the real truth? Or is it the Bhagwad Gita? Or the Tao Te Ching? Or the Avesta? Or some other holy book? These are all holy books that represent the teachings of many major religions and each has literally hundreds of millions of followers who believe completely in the validity of THEIR respective holy book.

You must decide for yourself which you believe is the divinely-inspired words of the creator of the universe – or if any of them are. Perhaps you may decide none of them are and they are all merely the machinations of politics and power. It’s up to you.

The purpose and scope here is not to determine such heady questions, but merely to outline some of the history behind the Bible and path that the original documents took before they became the Bible we see today. (Source: Where Did the Bible Come From: Another interesting, thought-provoking article by Val Serrie

Resources: Questionable quality of Christian apologetics & typical "churchy" answers

Please help spread the message any way you can:

  1. Fundamentalism — whether religious or political — is one of the true, major, current scourges on the planet; nothing good can come from it.

  2. The way forward for all mankind is to embrace basic universal spiritual principles in all affairs.

  3. Individuals, groups, and nations should not expect others to adopt their own culture-specific or religion-specific traditions, practices, or beliefs; instead, mutual respect should reign.

This post was started on Sunday, May 06, 2012

For later:
Creation story issues

Yahweh created the tree of knowledge of good and evil with delicious fruit which grants great wisdom to those who partake of it. Then he showed it to the humans and told them not to eat it.

Isn’t this the equivalent of placing a $100 on a Mississippi sidewalk and expecting no one to grab it? Is this wise or loving in any form or fashion?

The __ argument portends that the amazing design of nature and the intelligence of man points to a creator. Yet the amazing intelligence (in some respects, anyway) of God somehow does not need a creator…

Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? Apologetics Press

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=6&article=1131

• Why did God plant the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden in the first place?
• Why would God need to rest? This implies physicality and is definitely not indicative of omnipotence.

Fundamentalism test: Are you a religious fundamentalist?

Posted on by
Reply

church people excitedly worship and praise their version of GodHere’s a quick and easy set of simple yes-or-no questions to help determine whether some might consider your beliefs as religious fundamentalism. There are many similar tests on the web.

1. There is only one true religion: the one I follow. Believers in all other religious and spiritual paths are probably doomed. (This seems to be the most pervasive, common belief or claim of the Nashville-area Christian fundamentalist.)

2. Those who do not accept our specific beliefs are not true believers.

3. Our religious text is the only valid scripture. The scriptures of all other so-called "revealed religions" are untrue, and possibly even heretical or blasphemous — and certainly cannot be compared to or used to interpret our religious text.

4. Our scripture generally requires no interpretation; it means exactly what it says. It is not open to varied interpretations. It contains truth, and only truth.

church worships, praises excitedly 5. If evidence of any kind (science, logic, reason, philosophy, etc.) contradicts our scriptures, then that evidence is wrong or is being misread in some way.

6. Our religious beliefs apply to all mankind, not just to our own churches and/or groups.

7. I try not to read, listen to, or watch anything that might challenge, make fun of, or ridicule my religious beliefs.

8. Questioning these truths is wrong; they must be accepted on faith.

Sample collection: Far Right Christian fundamentalist reading material from Apologetics Press; all free (downloadable PDF files)

9. The only morally correct political parties are on the right (or the far right); true believers cannot be liberals.

10. I don’t merely believe in my religion, I KNOW it is true.

Resources: Religious fundamentalism

messages from Hard Right Christian supremacists

Removed content
I had to change this one. Here is the original version of the question, which was too narrow; even the Church of Christ would not accept this, as the New Testament rules naturally could not possibly apply to Old Testament times:

6. Our religious beliefs apply directly to all mankind — in ALL times, cultures, and places.

This test question seemed a little too strong:

7. There is always a clear and simple choice between Good and Evil; anyone who thinks otherwise is on the side of Evil. (If you aren’t with us, you are against us.)

Unity Church, Unitarian Universalism, other pluralistic traditions

Posted on by
Reply

NOTE: This is a stub to be converted into a useful, informative post on this Search for Truth blog as time allows. As always, thanks for reading!

world peaceThe Unity Church is not the same as the Unitarian Church, even though they sound so much alike and are often confused; however, in comparison to most modern Christian denominations (e.g., Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.), Unity and Unitarian are certainly much more alike than different with regard to their tolerance of diverse beliefs, their overall encouragement and support of religious pluralism, etc.

A few basics re: the Unity Church:

Spiritual seekers often say that finding Unity is like coming home. Unity is an open-minded, accepting spiritual community that honors all paths to God and helps people discover and live their spiritual potential and purpose.

unityA positive alternative to negative religion, Unity seeks to apply the teachings of Jesus as well as other spiritual masters. Unity affirms the power of prayer and helps people experience a stronger connection with God every day. (Source: About Unity: Practical Teachings

Five basic ideas that the Unity movement sets forward as its main belief system are:

  • God is the source and creator of all. There is no other enduring power. God is good and present everywhere.
  • We are spiritual beings, created in God’s image. The spirit of God lives within each person; therefore, all people are inherently good.
  • We create our life experiences through our way of thinking.
  • There is power in affirmative prayer, which we believe increases our connection to God.
  • Knowledge of these spiritual principles is not enough. We must live them.

Unity is devoted to demonstrating that the teachings of Jesus Christ can be lived every day. Unity’s basic position is that the true “Church” is a “state of consciousness in mankind.”[13] Unity teaches that each person is a unique expression of God, that each person is sacred, and each person is worthy. Unity emphasizes the creative power of thought in people’s experience, and encourages taking personal responsibility to choose life-affirming thoughts, words and actions, holding that when people do this, they experience a more fulfilling and abundant life.
(Source: Wikipedia)

The seven principles and purposes of Unitarian Univeralism

  1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person
  2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
  3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations
  4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
  5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large
  6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all
  7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part


Background of the 7 principles
Deliberately without an official creed or dogma (per the principle of freedom of thought), Unitarian Universalists instead typically agree with the Principles and Purposes suggested by the Unitarian Universalist Association. As with most actions in Unitarian Universalism, these were created in committee, and affirmed democratically by a vote of member congregations, proportional to their membership, taken at an annual General Assembly (a meeting of delegates from member congregations). Adopted in 1960, the full Principles, Purposes and Sources can be found in the article on the Unitarian Universalist Association. (Source: Wikipedia)

Unitarian Universalism: Basics
Unitarian Universalism is often referred to by its members as a living tradition, and the principles and purposes have been modified over time to reflect changes in spiritual beliefs among the membership. Most recently, the last principle, adopted in 1985 and generally known as the Seventh Principle, “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part”, and a sixth source (adopted in 1995), “Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature” were added to explicitly include members with Neopagan, Native American, and pantheist spiritualities. Unitarian Universalists tend to promote beliefs of a person that are based on their individual thoughts, and can range from strict monotheistic belief to less credal or more inclusive views. (Source: Wikipedia)

Resources: Unity Church, Unitarian Universalism, other pluralistic traditions

Neville Goddard: New Thought pioneer

Posted on by
Reply

Neville Goddard, New Thought pioneer and teacherOnly very recently I have appreciated and enjoyed checking out the teachings of Neville Goddard, which are essentially a poetic conveyance of New Thought teachings: the deep spiritual message which many believe to be the properly understood purpose and interpretation of the Bible as well as other religions. (The adjective spiritual is crucial in the previous sentence, since Neville’s message was certainly not religious in any traditional sense of the word.)

The message of Neville is a New Thought paradigm which just so happens to use Christian terminology and references. This is merely the author’s preference and does not indicate traditional Christian views or beliefs in any sense, as Neville was a New Thought pioneer and not a Christian author or teacher. NOTE: As most are not familiar with New Thought spirituality, the spiritual movement is described in more detail below, using the words of William James.

Neville’s central themes remind me quite a bit of another excellent spiritual teacher and New Thought pioneer who also preferred to stick with Christian terminology: Emmet Fox. The New Thought teachings of Neville and Fox are in stark contrast to old-school Protestant Christianity, often characterized by traditional dogma, literal interpretation of the Bible, centered in churches split up into denominations, the belief in a literal heaven and hell, a real devil or Satan, Noah’s ark, a global flood, etc.

For the sake of comparison — and a quick understanding for anyone reading this — here’s another quick and simple illustration to compare the two worldviews: New Thought is to Fundamentalist Christianity as the Unity Church[1] is to the Southern Baptist church.

books by Neville Goddard, New Thought pioneer and teacherIn other words, New Thought spirituality — including the teachings of Neville Goddard and Emmet Fox — has little to do with Christianity as it is commonly understood, and is completely unrelated to today’s far right Christian fundamentalism. (In the case of doubt, a quick bit of brief web research into the New Thought movement will show this to be true.)

One difference in these two worldviews is that, in New Thought, true divine power is seen to be within us; it does not come from any external being or source (as is the traditional religious viewpoint of God, sitting on his throne way up above the sky in heaven). As Neville Goddard likes to say, God is the imagination of man.

Eckhart Tolle is one of the most famous and influential New Thought teachers, especially after a big boost from Oprah — but uses virtually no religious terminology. Wayne Dyer is one of my favorite New Thought teachers; he frequently references Christian, Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, and many other religious and spiritual traditions.

There are quite a few other New Thought writers and teachers.

New Thought holds no religion to be fundamentally true to the exclusion of any other religion(s). New Thought properly implies, if not outright conveys, the fact that…

The practical aspects of all religions are in amazing harmony: the source of an amazing, unifying, reassuring bliss!

[ Indeed, spiritual truth is almost TOO simple to grasp!! ]

Wayne Dyer on the PBS set of Wishes FulfilledIt doesn’t take much reading to see that perhaps Neville’s favorite hook is the word imagination! To Neville, human imagination is God; God is literally the imagination of man. Neville stresses that one of the main reasons mankind has been so slow to catch on to the real message of Christianity — the true spiritual (not religious) message — is that man has wrongly interpreted Bible stories, including the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth, as history and biography while failing to understand the metaphorical meanings of these teaching stories.

Wayne Dyer on the PBS set of Wishes FulfilledOne of the beautiful aspects of New Thought is that the terminology of any major religion can be used to describe it — without changing the inherent meaning! Such a concept may seem impossible until one truly sees and accepts that the practical aspects of world religion and spiritual practices are in harmony. This is among the highest of realizations.

I first heard of Neville Goddard when his The Power of Imagination book was praised by Wayne Dyer in his PBS talk Wishes Fulfilled.

William James describes New Thought

Those of us with significant twelve-step experience and understanding have probably read The Varieties of Religious Experience — the fantastic book by William James, which described the New Thought movement as follows:

… for the sake of having a brief designation, I will give the title of the "Mind-cure movement." There are various sects of this "New Thought," to use another of the names by which it calls itself; but their agreements are so profound that their differences may be neglected for my present purpose, and I will treat the movement, without apology, as if it were a simple thing.

It is an optimistic scheme of life, with both a speculative and a practical side. In its gradual development during the last quarter of a century, it has taken up into itself a number of contributory elements, and it must now be reckoned with as a genuine religious power. It has reached the stage, for example, when the demand for its literature is great enough for insincere stuff, mechanically produced for the market, to be to a certain extent supplied by publishers – a phenomenon never observed, I imagine, until a religion has got well past its earliest insecure beginnings.

One of the doctrinal sources of Mind-cure is the four Gospels; another is Emersonianism or New England transcendentalism; another is Berkeleyan idealism; another is spiritism[2], with its messages of "law" and "progress" and "development"; another the optimistic popular science evolutionism of which I have recently spoken; and, finally, Hinduism has contributed a strain. But the most characteristic feature of the mind-cure movement is an inspiration much more direct. The leaders in this faith have had an intuitive belief in the all-saving power of healthy-minded attitudes as such, in the conquering efficacy of courage, hope, and trust, and a correlative contempt for doubt, fear, worry, and all nervously precautionary states of mind. Their belief has in a general way been corroborated by the practical experience of their disciples; and this experience forms to-day a mass imposing in amount. (Source: New Thought – Wikipedia)

NOTES

[1] Unity Church

The Unity Church is not the same as the Unitarian Church, even though they sound so much alike and are often confused; however, in comparison to most modern Christian denominations (e.g., Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.), Unity and Unitarian are certainly much more alike than different with regard to their tolerance of diverse beliefs, their overall encouragement and support of religious pluralism, etc.

Unity Church basics:

Spiritual seekers often say that finding Unity is like coming home. Unity is an open-minded, accepting spiritual community that honors all paths to God and helps people discover and live their spiritual potential and purpose.

A positive alternative to negative religion, Unity seeks to apply the teachings of Jesus as well as other spiritual masters. Unity affirms the power of prayer and helps people experience a stronger connection with God every day. (Source: About Unity: Practical Teachings

[2] Spiritism

Actually, the most basic belief regarding spiritualism is that humans possess an eternal spirit which goes on after our physical demise. Despite being a common, standard belief in most religions and spiritual paths, it nevertheless falls into the category of the supernatural; therefore, it is not a belief on which this blogger makes any judgment, either way. Like every other human, I simply do not know the answers to supernatural questions and I’m perfectly willing to admit as much.

You won’t see spiritism (e.g., the belief that mediums can communicate with spirits, et al) being peddled here. If the ability of mediums to talk to the dead happens to be a part of modern New Thought beliefs, then it is a part to which I do not subscribe.

And that’s perfectly fine. Remaining true to the Jeffersonian spirit of deciding upon one’s spiritual/religious beliefs for oneself, I do not automatically accept any teachings — even the teachings of New Thought.

I have yet to meet an organized religion or system of belief with which I agree completely.

Notable quotes from Neville Goddard from Awakened Imagination

Coming later…

Resources: Neville Goddard

  1. Real Neville
  2. Neville Goddard audio downloads for sale – Large collection
  3. Neville Lecture Hall: Preserving Neville’s Words and Wisdom — Sometimes we look for answers on the outside, not knowing the answers all lie within our imagination’s grasp now. Many look for power on the outside when The Power resides within themselves – always. Take a risk on yourself and explore the inside of You through Neville Goddard’s lectures in written and audio formats now…
  4. God’s Promise To Man – Neville Goddard 2-08-1963
  5. Neville Goddard books online – Steve Palina
  6. Awakened Imagination, by Neville Goddard – Archive.org
  7. As you have heard, this morning’s subject is “Awakened Imagination” – RealNeville.com

Removed content
It is the underlying message that’s of critical importance.

Miguel Ruiz, for example — though not officially characterized as a New Thought teacher — promotes views that mesh rather nicely with New Thought. The terminology favored by Ruiz comes from the Toltec wisdom tradition of Central America, yet the message is basically the same.

It is a fundamentally critical — or critically fundamental :) — point that seems to be somehow missed by Bible literalists, even today.

If you miss it now, perhaps you will get it later.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Thoughts on the interpretation of revealed religious texts, scriptures

Posted on by
Reply

misinterpretation classically illustrated via pop culture of The OfficeThis morning, I stumbled across a simple theory which was lurking in my brain: A basic idea regarding the various interpretations people choose to apply when reading potentially deep spiritual, religious, fanciful, philosophical, etc. writings. Perhaps — in addition to upbringing and other factors — individual intelligence plays a role in whether one interprets scripture literally or poetically/metaphorically.

This interesting, highly controversial (in conservative Nashville, at least), somewhat meandering post will eventually be broken up into several smaller posts. There are some good points, persuasive arguments, and fresh ideas here — but it got a little long… As always, thanks for reading.

When reading a particular religious or spiritual text — say, the Bible — why is it that…

  • Some individuals prefer, or assume, that literal interpretation is proper or correct, while…
  • Others cannot make sense of the material unless it is understood to be less literal, and more poetic, metaphorical, full of literary devices, etc.?

interpretation of scripture, religious texts: infinite possibilitiesOn literal interpretations
Isn’t it true that the simplest possible interpretation of a given text is the literal interpretation of it? It seems to me this is so. What could be simpler than the directness of literal meanings of words being read? The only ability or skill required for this level of understanding, I believe, would be basic reading comprehension.

Vigorous use of the mind is rarely required for literal interpretations of the written word; the meaning of such material is conveyed quite matter-of-factly. Basic reading comprehension is generally the only skill necessary when reading for literal interpretation.

On non-literal interpretations & deeper meaning
And isn’t it also true that non-literal interpretations — by default, by definition — require deeper thought, more focused concentration, more background knowledge, and maybe even higher intellect on occasion? And doesn’t it follow that other, more advanced written spiritual teachings are even more involved & complex, requiring the reader to have experienced certain things, to have had exposure to particular culture(s), or to possess certain wisdom — before the material can be properly understood?

More sophisticated literature is quite different. Often, the reader must also apply contemplation, critical thought, intellect, experience, wisdom, common sense, etc. when literary devices are being used by the writer, or if the material is thought to impart a deeper meaning than literal interpretation would convey.

But it’s the application of these ideas that’s really important…

Scriptures and stories mistakenly interpreted as history, biography, and fact by so many modern religious adherents ought to be read as poetry, metaphor, allegory, aphorism, and archetype: literature that’s brimming with literary devices and fantastic poetic effects. Only with non-literal interpretation of revealed religious texts do the lessons therein…

  • Unite mankind rather than driving man apart
  • Strike a chord with rational & logical thinkers
  • Stand up to the Bible’s exhortations to test everything[5] that is said
  • Allow readers and students to reason together about the deeper, pragmatic meanings
  • Fit neatly and cleanly into the grand scheme, the puzzle of world religion
  • Illuminate other religious paths & spiritual traditions previously believed to be at odds with the Bible — thus illuminating itself further (When one respects the religion of another, he honors not only the other religion but his own)

Examples
Two of my favorite examples of literal Bible interpretation that cannot stand up to even the most rudimentary, basic arguments are:

  1. A six-day creation of the universe occurring less than ten thousand years ago (This is a story; it is not history.)
  2. A global flood lasting almost a year, with Noah’s family and a pair of every type of animal on earth being saved in a boat (This is a story; it is not history.)

We are not making fun of you if you are still holding on to these beliefs for whatever reason(s); however — if the subject interests you — we urge you to launch your own independent study. Examine the accounts from all angles, look into related matters as objectively as possible… and the truth will eventually make itself clear as long as you can avoid the tricky trap of closed-mindedness.

Caveat: It’s just a theory… food for thought for thinkers

interpretation of scripture, religious texts: infinite possibilitiesThis so-called theory has nothing to do with the intended message of individual religious scriptures and spiritual teachings; their meanings must be "determined" — or perhaps more accurately, guessed — on a case-by-case basis.

For example, the correct interpretation for most Buddhist texts is probably a fairly literal interpretation, with the exception of certain Buddhist gathas and sutras which might utilize more poetic or literary devices.

Noah's ark - Bible story, not to be interpreted literally, or as history, or science, or factOn the other hand, the best guess regarding correct interpretation of the Bible as a whole, we believe, would certainly not be literal. The Bible is full of fantasy, paranormal events, supernatural beings with incredible powers of control over humans, metaphorical teaching stories, allegory, and countless other literary vehicles that are not meant — nay, cannot be meant — to represent real science, accurate biographies, or accounts of history (in many cases, anyway; some of the stories are probably true or based upon actual events).

How could one come to such a conclusion? Well, it’s a novel concept to many…

By actually reading the Bible.

The only thing one must do to grasp this is to read the Bible in its entirety, without obtaining any external input along the way — from biased sources, in particular. This writer knows of no better, more effective way to determine how the Bible ought to be interpreted than to read the Bible in its entirety as objectively as possible: A careful, independent, reasonably objective reading of the Bible from cover to cover. After such an unattached Bible reading, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Bible delivers a strong spiritual, metaphysical message — not a cogent religious or supernatural message.

If you are (or claim to be) a Christian, yet have never even read the entire Bible… well, that’s a cause for concern — and a sure sign that your religious opinions and comments should be taken with a grain of salt. (But you already know this.) Please do not allow yourself to remain a mental loafer when it comes to religious belief — if it’s important to you, that is.

One of the more curious arguments for the literal interpretation of the Bible pertains to archeological digs and findings which clearly show that many of the geographical locations and descriptions in the Bible were reasonably accurate.

That’s a given. The problem is in the subsequent reasoning.

If accurate geographical descriptions of places, architecture, etc. in literature indicate that the related stories represent true, actual, factual history, then we must conclude that the novels of Stephen King are true, since the events of characters’ lives play out in real places like Bangor, Maine.

Hundreds, or perhaps thousands of years from now, archaeologists will discover ancient Bangor in what used to be Maine. The resulting new religion — Stephen Kingism — will have no trouble converting plenty of green simpletons; after all, the discovery of old Bangor will serve as "undeniable" evidence to the gullible masses that the events described in the Stephen King novel Bag of Bones really happened!

Modern archaeology often succeeds in amazing historical finds with the uncovering of ancient cities that played a role in "revealed" religious texts such as the Bible & the Koran. It’s interesting stuff, for sure; history can be absolutely riveting! But then religious fundamentalism takes it way too far and creates beliefs like:

The recent discovery of the ancient Biblical city of Ur by a crack team of archaeologists and anthropologists provides yet more proof and support for our strong religious faith by indicating that the events in the Bible really did happen. We find Ur in the story of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 12:1-20 – 22:1-24, wherein Abraham — successful trader and herdsman — left his native city of Ur during a period of upheaval…

(And these things often get published!)

It’s not a complicated point: The use of archeological or geographical similarities between religious texts and modern discoveries as evidence of true, factual, historical or biographical accounts is ludicrous, illogical, and irrational — basically worthless. All such arguments should thus be deleted and forgotten — summarily tossed out of contention.

Other issues with literal interpretation
Noah's ark: a Bible story, not to be interpreted literally, or as history, or science, or factEfforts to interpret the Bible literally require the setting aside of much science, logic, reason, common sense, and so on — as well as the adoption of fancy & fantasy as fact. When literal interpretations of the Bible are forced upon adherents (e.g., taught as absolute truth to impressionable children and adults), the material becomes extremely problematic and divisive. Literal interpretation followed by actual belief in subjects of fantasy — so many found in Genesis — like a conversant snake, a six-day universe creation, the whimsical existence of light before the sun or stars, the creation of two great lights[2], a historical Noah’s ark & global flood, a talking ass[3] (I’m not making these up, you know), the tower of Babel causing God to fear man, men living to be almost a thousand years old, etc. all serve as excellent reasons the Bible should not be interpreted literally. [ Why Do Intelligent Christians Believe? ]

crystal ball, occultReligious fundamentalism includes belief in the supernatural, so it’s a category of paranormal belief. This is neither positive nor negative — merely a statement of fact (unless one has strong feelings either way about the term paranormal). When fundamentalists are asked whether they believe in the paranormal, I suppose the correct answer is yes. When asked whether they believe in mediums that can communicate with the dead, I guess they must answer in the positive (if they are to be truthful).

The paranormal bit is true in the context of occult practices, as well — such as communicating with the dead. IMHO, one of the most interesting stories in the Old Testament is that of Saul and the medium of Endor. (It sounds like a George Lucas creation, doesn’t it?)

In I Samuel 28, Saul consults a medium and goes on to speak with the dead. There were other instances of communication beyond the grave as well; Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah hundreds of years after their deaths. Per fundamentalism and/or Biblical literalism, practices like divination and sorcery must be real, since these and similar events took place in the Bible (which, the fundamentalists continuously remind us, is supposed to be interpreted as literal fact). [ 100 Reasons to Doubt ]

Enduring Word has some good advice:

Things such as tarot cards, palm readers, horoscopes, and Ouija Boards are modern attempts to practice forms of spiritism. They are dangerous links to the demonic, even if undertaken in a spirit of fun. Christians should have nothing to do with occultic arts or practices.

Obviously, literal interpretation followed by the actual belief in the resulting fantasies is a highly flammable topic, and we are certainly not judging anyone. However, the material in this blog was written to discourage the fundamentalism & fideism that seriously weakens certain belief systems — but mainly to promote & encourage adherence to basic universal spiritual principles.

If you have chosen (or have been led) to interpret the Bible literally — have you ever looked into its teachings about the afterlife — about what will happen when the trumpets sound at the second coming? The standard modern Christian belief seems to be that our souls will be sent to heaven (or hell, in some cases). But does the Bible teach or imply that our afterlives will be experienced by our souls — or by our resurrected physical bodies?

Does anyone really believe that physical corpses — most of which have deteriorated to mere skeletons and piles of dust (or much less, in the case of cremated bodies) — will suddenly reassemble when those trumpets sound, and then drift off into the sunset like so many helium balloons? (Paraphrased from Why Do Intelligent Christians Believe? — Craig Hart Online)

zombie horror action: Supernatural Horror blog
Need I say, that would be truly horrifying — and not from a "religious fear" perspective, either, but from pure, unadulterated, creepy horror! As a longtime horror film aficionado, I feel confident in this judgment.

Sure enough, we’d be facing a global zombie panic. It would be relatively short-lived, though, I suppose — depending on how long the automatic reconstitution of long-decayed bodies takes. So much of the required matter — that is, the atoms and molecules of the elements formerly bound together as a particular human being at some time in the near or distant past — is presently used for trees, animals, dirt, grass, water, other people, subterranean rocks, and all other physical material on and in the Earth.

A respectful way to postpone a religious debate?[2]

In looking back, I respect a particular phrase I heard from a non-fundamentalist Christian friend about twelve years ago during a short-lived religious debate — a conversation which eventually turned south and ended abruptly. (We are still good friends.)

When I asked Dane whether or not he believed that a particular supernatural event described in the Bible actually happened, he responded with something to the effect of:

Yes; within the system, that’s true…

In other words, within the system of Christianity, Lazarus being raised from the dead (for example) is true. In the context of the Christian religion, the story is true; or, from a Biblical perspective, the story is accurate.

Dane used what seemed at the time to be a subtle, crafty, well-timed caveat or disclaimer.

NOTE: I did not describe Dane’s response as well as I intended to; the way he stated it — within the context of the conversation we were having at the time — it sounded better. Honest! :)

Notes

[1] Creation of two great lights

This is an obvious reference to the sun and moon, presenting many problems for those who would interpret this religious poetry literally, or as fact, history, or science.

There are countless billions of galaxies across the universe, with each galaxy containing potentially billions of great lights (stars).

Furthermore, the moon is not a light; it merely reflects light in the same manner as a light-colored wall would reflect light.

The creation story is crammed with fantasy; it seems to be one of the stories that most obviously cannot be meant for modern humans to interpret literally, or as historical fact.

[2] Religious debate

This blogger is not suggesting that readers avoid religious debate. We strongly encourage respectful conversation about religion and spirituality, obviously; however, these kinds of potentially touchy subjects — religion, politics — often rear their ugly heads at the most inopportune times!

On the other hand, tactfully steering clear of debate about religion can be a classy, spiritually proper choice. Arguments and debates concerning religion are sure-fire ways to wake up the human ego! Therefore, declining to uphold or support a particular set of views about politics or religion can truly be an exercise in ego-deflation. It’s not always easy to keep one’s trap shut…

As we’ve mentioned before (e.g., in the list of spiritual principles), we consider ego deflation to be a pillar of genuine spiritual practice.

[3] A talking donkey…

talking animals in the Bible: Balamm's donkey or assThe story of Balaam and his donkey can be found in Numbers 22:21-33. In the shell of a nut, Balaam is a fiery-tempered fellow who won’t hesitate to whip his misbehaving animal into submission. After Balaam whips his donkey for the third time, the ass complains:

28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

The most hilarious thing about the Bible’s talking animals is this:

When the lucky people within earshot of these amazing talking creatures — Eve in Genesis, and Balaam here, with the donkey — actually hear the comments made by the animal, rather than reacting with surprise, shock, or amazement (as anyone would), they just casually respond to the animal! It’s hilarious.

[4] "Revealed" religions…

If you have spent serious time studying religions, then you’ve undoubtedly seen a handful of religions referred to as the revealed religions. These are the religions purporting to have been "revealed" from God to man, in relatively direct fashion — some form of revelation. I can think of four so-called revealed religions off the top of my head: Judaism (via revelation to Moses), Christianity, Islam (via revelation to Muhammad), and the Latter Day Saint movement or Mormonism (via revelation to Joseph Smith). I believe there are a few more… the progressive revelation of Bahai, Zoroastrianism…

OF course, there are dozens of other purported religious or spiritual revelations of varying types: the revelation to Esther Hicks by the spirit entity named Abraham, the Urantia Book, etc.

[5] Test everything…

1 Thessalonians 5:21: Prove all things, but hold fast that which is good… To prove all things is a needful caution. Many religious adherents fall short in careful, independent contemplation of spiritual matters. It is so much easier to be lazy mental loafers and simply accept whatever is taught at church! We mustn’t waffle around here. If you have not yet plunged headlong into your own independent, objective, detailed search for spiritual truth — if instead you simply glide along the path of least resistance, accepting the traditional teachings of your group on trust, never asking the difficult questions, fearing what others will think or say — then perhaps it is time to get real. Go for it!

One must absolutely not take spiritual or religious teachings upon trust from preachers, teachers, rabbis, ministers, pastors, elders, or anyone else.

Instead, test everything.

If a spiritual or religious teaching cannot withstand basic rational thought… if it doesn’t work in the real world… if experience shows it not to be so… if it fails to withstand generic debate… then be wary of it and consider dumping it from your belief system. Travelers on the Middle Path must not believe every teaching, but must try every teaching! When one is satisfied as to the spiritually-principled nature, the truth, the love, etc. of a given teaching, then one ought to hang on to it — regardless of the resulting opposition, persecution, ridicule, unpopularity, parting with the majority, or whatever other struggles and challenges one may meet with for the sake thereof.

In today’s Hard Right fundamentalist, dominionist, extremist circles, one can easily detect praise for human (or American) infallibility, implicit faith, and blind obedience — none of which properly understood spiritual teachings. All travelers on the path of enlightenment must attain sound judgment, discretion & discernment — giving his senses adequate exercise in discerning truth from falsehood, supporting unity over division, practicing compassion over intolerance, living in the present moment and not in the past or the future, and generally adhering to basic universal spiritual principles in all areas of life. We must not only adhere, but encourage others to become familiar with those basic universal spiritual principles on which virtually all world religions and spiritual paths agree. Amazing — and reassuring.

Resources: Thoughts on interpretation: Revealed religious texts, scriptures

Content to edit

Religion has reason on its side; there is all the reason in the world why we should do as God would have us do. The God of heaven condescends to reason the case with those that contradict him and find fault with his proceedings; for he will be justified when he speaks, Ps. 51:4. The case needs only to be stated (as it is here very fairly) and it will determine itself. God shows here upon what terms they stood (as he does, Eze. 18:21-24; 33:18, 19) and then leaves it to them to judge whether these terms are not fair and reasonable. (Source: Isaiah 1:18 and commentary )

Removed content
(It’s probably nothing more than illogical silliness, this idea which formed in my mind during the wee, dark hours of the morning…)

Is the implication here that interpreting religious texts literally is tantamount to believing Michael Scott is the World’s Best Boss? (You decide — let it be on your own, though…)

This theory may help clear up some things… in particular, varied ideas concerning the true meaning of flowery or poetic text, such as that found within Neville Goddard‘s deep spiritual books.

There is no place in modern society for anyone who thinks that Balaam and his donkey had a philosophical argument — or that a talking snake brought on the downfall of man and the subsequent expulsion from the garden… (Source:

Perhaps specific examples will be provided later in order to more clearly illustrate this theory… That is, unless this page is quickly forgotten (which it very well may be)…

There are countless examples throughout the Bible.

100 Reasons to Doubt: Yet more intelligence & reasonable skepticism with sights set on Hard Right idiocy

Posted on by
Reply

classic God art - Monty Python and the Holy GrailThe aspect of the evolved, intelligent human examined today is rational skepticism. I’ll dive into the importance – nay, the necessity – of rational skepticism shortly; but right now, I must drop the writing & blogging and cram for a meeting with an important web client (one of the most respected remodeling firms in Nashville)!

Today’s coveted Daily Inspiration prize has been awarded to that classic, cogent, entertaining spring of truthiness, 100 Reasons to Doubt.

The winnings: Being mentioned on this quiet, personal blog

What follows are some notes taken earlier; I’ll use ‘em later to craft this into a decent read…

100 reasons to doubt a Bible so errant…

Rick Santorum, hard-right Christian fundamentalist

What day do you think Jesus was crucified? You know the story about The Last Supper and the famous painting of Jesus and The Twelve. But did you know the Bible actually gives us conflicting dates for his crucifixion? (Source: Reason #94: When was Jesus crucified?

You’d think the writers — or God, via his superpowers — would have avoided contradiction and error for something so important… But you’d be wrong.

This one’s a classic: booze.

The apostle Paul faced many challenges during his lifetime and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, was able to perform some miraculous deeds. He raised a man from the dead (Acts 20:9-20); he was even able to heal multitudes of sick and dying by simply touching their disease-ridden handkerchiefs (Acts 19:11-12).

Yet there was one ailment that even the great apostle Paul was not able to overcome: the flu. When Timothy complained to his mentor about a nagging stomach Paul offers him a surprisingly sensible remedy:drink some wine. (Source:
Reason #81: Paul’s sensible remedy for a stomach ache)

Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. (1 Timothy 5:23)

Michele Bachmann, tea party republican christian fundamentalist creationistReason #81: Paul’s sensible remedy for a stomach ache

http://100reasonstodoubt.tumblr.com/tagged/textual

Reason #70: Talking animals

Reason #76: Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum

Reason #82: Paul’s oppression of women

Reason #87: Bible teaches geocentrism

Resources – Daily Inspiration: Rational skepticism

man worships excitedly at church with a hand in the air

Follow-up email: Center for Spiritual Renewal at Lipscomb University

Posted on by
Reply

Lipscomb University, northwest entrance with purple flowers - Nashville, TennesseeBACKGROUND: This email was written just before my first meeting with C. McKelvey, Director of Lipscomb University‘s relatively new Center for Spiritual Renewal, which I learned about from my good friend Steve G., owner of Brentwood Landscapes, Inc. Dr. McKelvey is the first prominent representative of Nashville-area churches of Christ with whom I have discussed my true beliefs (or lack thereof, depending upon one’s perspective)… To some readers this may seem a trivial matter; however, it is anything but trivial when one has been raised in the Nashville-area church and sent to the most prominent local Christian school from first grade all the way through college — especially when one’s father is a locally famous professor at said private university. I abandoned Christian fundamentalism in my early 30s and have since made an effort to spread this message of truth: The way forward for all of mankind is to abide by basic universal spiritual principles and to abandon all forms of fundamentalist belief systems — whether religious or political.

Lindsley Avenue church - Nashville, TNDear Dr. McKelvey,
I hope you are having a fantastic week, and that you are enjoying this weather! I am also grateful that we were able to set a time and date for our upcoming meeting.

Over one year ago — just after your 2011 talk at the Lindsley Ave. church — I made the highly unusual decision to be completely frank and forthright with you regarding the details of the evolution of my spiritual and religious beliefs. For technical reasons, you never received that email — and part of me, at least, was quite relieved!! :)

Here is a slightly updated version of that email: A brief summary of my spiritual quest

After much contemplation, meditation, and prayer, I have decided to go through with it. Openly discussing present beliefs is the right thing to do, despite the certain, inherent disagreement. I eagerly anticipate our meeting, but — of course — with the complete expectation of a friendly meeting free of any heated, religious debate or the generation of any resentment, animosity, or negativity.

Lipscomb University campus - Nashville, TennesseeI’m not foolish enough to believe I could persuade someone like you to believe as I now do; however, that does not stop me from doing all I can to spread what I believe to be the truth… Despite the probability that a superficial glance at some of these "controversial" articles may lead one to think our differences are too deep to meet halfway, in reality they are not… I still consider myself a Christian, just as Thomas Jefferson did. All we must do, in a sense, is acknowledge the simple fact that we choose to interpret scripture a bit differently!

Lipscomb University - Science Building entrance, West side of campus - Nashville, TennesseeThat being said, I deeply respect what you are doing with the Center for Spiritual Renewal at Lipscomb University. I can only imagine what some of the crusty, old-school fundamentalists might have thought about Lipscomb creating something more spiritual than religious…

To me, there is nothing in this life more important than a genuinely honest quest for spiritual truth. This belief did manage to successfully stick in my mind from my early religious training, and I’m certain it always will.

Lipscomb University library - Nashville, TennesseeThat being the case, I have spent the majority of my spare time since around age 33 (ironic, I know) in a deep and meaningful quest for spiritual truth from multiple angles and worldviews. I would not trade that time for anything.

Future collaboration on articles or other spirituality-related projects sure would be nice; however, I doubt you’d be allowed to agree with the likes of me, even if you wanted to! :) Should any related opportunities become possible at some point, it would be a great honor to consider assisting with them in some way.

I eagerly anticipate our upcoming meeting. I intend to send you a few more links that detail current beliefs, in the event you are interested in discussing them in detail, or would like the opportunity to prepare more deeply for our discussion on April 18.